Linux and Open Source

November 20th, 2009

Oracle opponent cheers delay in mySQL decision

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:41 am

Categories: Database Management, GPL, General, Government, Oracle, Strategy, Sun Microsystems, mergers & acquisitions

Tags: Oracle Corp., MySQL, Open Source, Databases, Enterprise Software, Software, Data Management, Dana Blankenhorn

Florian Mueller, coordinating opposition to Oracle’s purchase of Sun Microsystems and mySQL, sent a note today cheering word that Oracle has asked for, and gotten, a six-day delay to answer European objections to the purchase. (Picture from Roberto Galoppini.)

Mueller, a former mySQL shareholder and strategic advisor, is working with mySQL co-founder Monty Widenius.

“Oracle is now apparently backtracking from previous claims that the European Commission has no credible theory of harm. If the EU’s objections were baseless, Oracle wouldn’t need more time now to develop its arguments. This is another sign of enormous weakness only three weeks after Oracle withdrew its antitrust application in Russia.

One more week won’t change the fact that MySQL competes fiercely with Oracle’s database products including its flagship ‘11g’ across all major market segments. One more week won’t transform a traditional company product like MySQL into a community project that could be developed by volunteers just because it’s open source. The best way Oracle can make use of this extra week is to think really hard about selling MySQL to a suitable third party.”

Mueller said the delay in Oracle’s response means a decision on the merger won’t come from the European Commission until January 27.

Widenius strongly disagrees with mySQL co-founder Marten Mickos on the Oracle-Sun deal. Mickos as written to EC Competition Commissioner Nellie Kroes asking that the deal go through.

My personal view is that Oracle could spin control of the code base into a foundation like Eclipse, with control based on investment, which would also enable money to flow in from mySQL stakeholders like Amazon.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison insists the delay in Europe’s approval is degrading the overall value of Sun, which also controls such important open source projects as Java and Open Office.

I do not disagree.

But due to its open source license Oracle is not gaining control of the mySQL code base, just becoming its commercial sponsor. So why not bring free money to support the code base and have something better to sell support on?

It’s reasonable that Ellison resents the interference of European bureaucrats in Oracle’s affairs. But personal feelings should not get in the way of business. This is business.

Business is just business.

November 19th, 2009

Google makes Chrome OS open source today

Posted by Paula Rooney @ 10:52 am

Categories: General

Tags: Google Inc., Web, Operating System, Netbook, Netbooks, Nettops & MIDs, Open Source, Channel Management, Hardware, Marketing, Paula Rooney

Contrary to rumors, Google did not release a beta version of its much anticipated Chrome operating system today. And nothing is coming anytime soon: the final version is at least a year away, the mega giant web company said.

But there was some significant news for the community today. Google made the early code available to the open source community and claims external developers will have the same access to the code as internal Google developers.

All the code is open and sketches of the design documents are available now. The final version of the cloud-based operating system is expected to ship at the end of 2010, before the holiday season, executives said.

Google also provided an early demonstration of the web operating system, which sports a Chrome browser-like interface that features application tabs instead of web page tab and a seven second bootup time that is expected to be much faster on its release.

For example, users will see the same clean tabbed style interface but the tabs on the upper left hand of the screen are for gmail, Yahoo, Facebook and any other web service or application customers use on a day-to-day basis.  All of the data, of course, is stored in the cloud.

Executives who showed the demo Thursday said the Chrome OS functions more like a TV than a computer. It is entirely solid state and based on Flash memory storage so there’s no latency that comes with using a hard disk.

The OS uses web-based security model. The software offers a verified boot and cryptographic signature keys that check for and ensure there’s no malware impacted the applications.  Like the Chrome browser, it will also feature security sandboxing to isolate one web application from another.

The web operating system will offer auto-updating and synchronization capabilities.

Go To Market

Google is working with partners to specify hardware competence and reference implementations at the hardware level.  That is, Google Chrome OS will support only solid state drives and select wireless cards. This means that customers will have to buy a new next-generation netbook or device that is designed for the Chrome OS.

The initial form factor for 2010 is the netbook. Laptops and desktops may follow in the future.

Google expects hardware devices to fall in same price range as netbooks are today.  Chrome OS netbooks will be larger and feature a full sized keyboard.

“The code is open. We would not be here if it were not for several large open source projects such as Linux kernel, Ubuntu, Moblin and webskit,” said Caesar Sengupta, Group Product Manager. ”We’ll be a good open source citizen.”

The open source operating system won’t support other browsers natively but third parties including Mozilla and Microsoft can take the code and do Firefox-based and Windows-based versions of the OS.

More Google Chrome OS coverage:

• Microsoft finds security hole in Google Chrome Frame
• Google Chrome OS security overview
• Releasing the Chromium OS open source project
• The Chromium Project
• Google’s Chrome OS: Will you give up desktop apps?

November 19th, 2009

Terracotta buys Quartz

Posted by Paula Rooney @ 7:16 am

Categories: Cloud Computing, FOSS, GPL, mergers & acquisitions, middleware, virtualization

Tags: Job, Clustering, Terracotta, Quartz, Recruitment & Selection, Open Source, Human Resources, Workforce Management, Paula Rooney

Open source Java clustering software developer Terracotta announced its intent to buy an open source job scheduler known as Quartz.

The integration of Quartz into Terracotta’s platform will ease high availability job scheduling and scaling applications to multiple nodes, the company said. Quartz is currently integrated into SpringSource and Red Hat products and counts Adobe, Cisco, Level 3 and Vodaphone as big customers. It eliminates the need for a central database to handle coordination, Terracotta reports.

Terracotta, of San Francisco, intends to support the Quartz open source project and will maintain the code under the Apache 2.0 license.

The job scheduling software will enhance Terracotta’s use in virtualized and cloud infrastructures, the company says.

“Quartz is ideal for creating simple or complex schedules for triggering application tasks such as driving process workflow and generating application data reports and recurring system maintenance checkups,” according to a release issued by Terracotta on Thursday.

“Now, with the acquisition, Terracotta will quickly integrate Quartz within the Terracotta platform to enable users to easily scale applications in large virtualized environments and private clouds and to distribute the massive workloads characteristic of these environments,” Terracotta announced.

November 19th, 2009

ChromeOS says tear down this network regulation wall

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:05 am

Categories: Cloud Computing, General, Google, Government, Internet, LANs and WANs, Legal, business models, mass market, politics

Tags: Software, Network, Chip, Wall, ChromeOS, Unleash Moore, Network Technology, Semiconductors, Networking, Hardware

An Australian friend wrote yesterday with a question:

I really can’t see the point of a cloud-based OS for the general user. The added cost in using it doesn’t seem worthwhile.

It would take me over 6 months to upload my data at my connection speed not to mention that ISPs here in Australia have now included uploads as part of your total usage which for me would be exceeded for those 6 months.

So can I ask - why choose ChromeOS ?

These are good questions. They have been vexing me ever since IBM and Ubuntu launched their Africa-only Linux, based heavily on network use, a few months ago.

It got me to thinking about the 1980s, the dawn of the Windows era.

Each new release of software pushed hardware beyond its limits. To get the latest new features, to review new software, I had to buy a new top-of-the-line PC every few years. Software sold hardware.

This helped make more than Bill Gates rich. It delivered fortunes to the entire semiconductor ecosystem — from box makers like Michael Dell to chip makers like Andy Grove of Intel to chip equipment makers like Jim Morgan of Applied Materials — everyone sold everything they could make at a fat profit.

All of today’s current trends — you can add clouds and the iPhone to this — are pushing demand for networking much as chip demand was pushed then.

What will meet that demand is just what met it then — Moore’s Law. Not Moore’s Law as Moore wrote it, but as it has been applied in networking technologies like optical fiber and radios.

Thanks to Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing, a single optical fiber today can carry many times the data it carried a decade ago. Thanks to Digital Signal Processors we can do the same thing with wireless data.

What is holding back network capacity is politics. We still think of it in terms of telephony, a regulated industry managed for scarcity. It’s not that way, and hasn’t been that way for a long time.

Throw out the old rule book and write a new one, based not on scarcity but abundance. Let the competition to serve more-and-more bits drive entrepreneurs to new fortunes around the world. Open more spectrum to unlicensed use, like WiFi is regulated, demand wholesaling of the last mile, and the bits you unleash will make us all rich again.

That’s what today’s software is telling us. That’s the message of ChromeOS. Unleash Moore’s Law in networks, unshackle competition to provide faster-and-faster data services, and watch the economy of the world take off again.

With ChromeOS Google is making the same call on networks Microsoft made on chips two decades ago. It’s a call that demands a response, not just from the market but from governments.

Deregulate. Free the bits. Here and around the world.

Or, as Ronald Reagan might say, Mr. Genachowski, tear down this wall.

November 19th, 2009

MindTouch launches its open source cloud

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:29 am

Categories: Cloud Computing, General, Infrastructure, Software as a Service, business models

Tags: MindTouch, Open Source, Software As A Service (SaaS), Emerging Technologies, Dana Blankenhorn

You can argue that clouds are fast becoming synonymous with SaaS, but MindTouch has launched its own cloud to serve up its open source collaboration solution.

MindTouch bills itself as the open source alternative to Sharepoint and recently named our own Matt Asay as the second most-influential executive in open source. (You’re number one in my book, Matt.)

Pricing starts at $7/month, but you can try it free. It allows non-programmers to overlay data from a variety of internal and external resources in a single collaborative environment.

You might consider it an enterprise mashup service akin to Salesforce.com’s Chatter. But while Chatter is focused on social media MindTouch is focused on enterprise data — Chatter is about social and MindTouch about media.

Of course that last may be a comparison of sales pitches, not feature sets. MindTouch is launching its cloud just a week after announcing its Enterprise Dashboard, so these features may just be at the top of its mind right now.

Clouds will bear careful watching in 2010. They not only abstract complexity and virtualize everything, but they also blur the lines of open source and proprietary with a unitary business model based on SaaS. Which means everyone in software competes with everyone, and on the same playing field.

Which would leave me with nothing to write about. Maybe I can finally start that novel.

November 18th, 2009

Where Microsoft is gaining in open source

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:52 am

Categories: GPL, General, Microsoft, Software Licensing

Tags: GPL, Microsoft Corp., Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

The latest Black Duck Software figures on open source license popularity make it clear.

Microsoft is gaining.

(The little black duck shown is copyrighted, trademarked, and has always been protected by Warner Bros., part of the Time-Warner media empire. He’s 72 but carries his age well. And Wikipedia knows his middle name.)

Microsoft licenses are now used on 1 in every 40 open source projects. That’s more than Mozilla. More than Eclipse. More than even the Lesser GPL.

Of course in the greater scheme of things 1 in 40 isn’t all that many. Nearly half of all open source projects are still licensed under the GPL v.2. Microsoft’s open source license market share is still less than half that of GPL v.3. (That’s why the cartoon duck is here rather than Black Duck’s little quacker. Think of GPL v.2 as being Bugs Bunny.)

But we’re talking about growing from a standing start. I’m impressed.

Much credit needs to go here to CodePlex, the Microsoft-sponsored open source site whose Foundation is headed by former Microsoft executive Sam Ramji.

NOTE: Ramji runs the Codeplex Foundation at codeplex.org, which is separate from Microsoft. The main Codeplex site is at codeplex.com.

In our recent interview, Ramji held out the possibility that the Microsoft licenses, and process, could tease a lot more code out of corporate repositories outside the software industry.

So there is room for growth there.

The Black Duck report also indicates there is room for growth in GPL v.3. There are now over 10,000 projects on GPL v.3, with many projects on Sourceforge continuing to switch over.

It’s this competition, between the Microsoft licenses and GPL v.3, that I will enjoy tracking most over the next year. What will you be looking at?

November 18th, 2009

Google-Microsoft rivalry on with ChromeOS launch

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:04 am

Categories: General, Google, Internet, Linux, Linux Desktop OS, Linux Laptop, Microsoft, Strategy, marketing

Tags: Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., Web Browser, ChromeOS, Chrome, Linux, Netbooks, Nettops & MIDs, Web Browsers, Operating Systems, UNIX

The daily competition between Google and Microsoft becomes ever-more direct this week, with Google hosting a demo of its ChromeOS tomorrow, right after Microsoft’s Professional Development conference.

ChromeOS is Google’s version of Linux for netbooks, much as Android is its Linux for handhelds. It is a version of Bill Gates’ nightmares from 15 years ago, as Netscape was rising, visions that led directly to the case of U.S. vs. Microsoft.

Microsoft got through that crisis unscathed in a corporate sense, but its image was transformed from that of a user-friendly upstart to that of “an implacable force for evil,” as one comedy show said recently, exemplified by the famous Boardwatch cover of Bill Gates as a member of the Borg, the Star Trek bad guys.

The fear, old programming hands will tell you, was that Netscape would turn its Mozilla browser into a full-fledged operating system that, because of its dominance of the browser space, could beat Windows in the market.

Chrome is a lot like that. It is centered on the browser, which abstracts the complexity of Linux from the user. And it’s designed to load fast, a real Achilles Heel for Windows on a netbook. An early version could be available for download next week.

When you’re paying $300 for your machine, you don’t want to wait 10 minutes for the thing to start, and you don’t want to be paying a lot for your software, either. ChromeOS is designed to fix both problems, so I am looking forward to it.

The hope is that the industry which supports ChromeOS will make up in services what it loses in up-front fees. And Google will be able to tie all its online services to ChromeOS, increasing its market share in areas like Mail where it is not yet dominant.

So, Mr. Bill, is resistance futile?

November 18th, 2009

Competition made Microsoft open source embedded .NET

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:34 am

Categories: BSD, Development, Distributions, General, Microsoft, wireless

Tags: Microsoft Corp., .Net, Application Servers, Linux, Middleware, Internet, Open Source, Software Development, Software/Web Development, Enterprise Software

Regular readers here have probably guessed why Microsoft decided to open source .NET Micro under the Apache 2.0 license.

Competition.

Makers of embedded devices have been moving strongly into open source, especially Linux, and Microsoft was at great risk of being left behind. The announcement was made at the company’s Professional Developer Conference in Los Angeles.

The news comes against the backdrop of falling market share for Windows Mobile, and increasing market share for Microsoft open source, as revealed in the latest Black Duck figures. They’re not being nice here, they’re being practical.

Here is how Microsoft community development manager Peter Galli put it on his blog:

The result of this is that the .NET Micro Framework has become a seamless development experience, bringing a single programming model and tool chain for the breadth of developer solutions, all the way from small intelligent devices, to servers and the cloud. There are also no more time-limited versions.

Note that Microsoft is not open sourcing the TCP/IP stack that .NET Micro links to. That’s someone else’s. But the news will let developers create Internet-linked device networks using .NET. It gives Microsoft an in to a technology open source, and Linux, were threatening to run away with.

The handwriting was probably on the wall here years ago, when Linux bought Wind River, and when innovative start-up Cavium bought MontaVista resistance became futile.

It must be noted that software is just a small part of any embedded, Internet-linked solution. It doesn’t mean you’re getting something for nothing, because the chips the software is expressed in are sold as part of larger devices.

It’s all part of a vision I covered early this decade of wireless networks acting as application platforms, using Internet standards to create systems for home automation, medicine and entertainment that are always on and live in the air.

Now Microsoft has a viable play in this game, and this is very good news for .NET developers.

November 17th, 2009

Five ways Android could get into trouble

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 7:43 am

Categories: General, Google, Hardware, Linux, Linux Handheld, telecom, wireless

Tags: Apple iPhone, Google Inc., Android, Smart Phones, Consumer Electronics, Personal Technology, Dana Blankenhorn

On the surface these are happy days in Android-land.

Going into the key Christmas selling season, Android is eating Windows for lunch. New (non-Google) development centers are continuing to open, new manufacturers are coming on stream.

What could possibly go wrong?

Knowing that rising markets need a wall of worry to keep going up, here are some possibilities:

1. Momentum must be maintained. Once you start gobbling market share you have to keep doing it. Even a slowing of momentum can be read as failure.
2. Developers must be kept happy. Some are complaining they’re working full-time getting apps written for the Android operating system running on multiple phones.
3. The Android app store has some catching-up to do, especially in the user experience area.
4. When will Android get a “killer app” that the iPhone can’t match, or one it hasn’t already matched?
5. Can Google ride herd on its complex ecosystem? Everyone knows who the boss is with the iPhone. Not so with Android. (UPDATE: Rich Sands writes to say this article from his site is more to the point.)

We shouldn’t get too excited about Android’s early success. A 3.5% market share is still a gnat on Apple’s elephant. Early buzz does not make for victory — as President Howard Dean will tell you. (Or President Huckabee, if you prefer.)

Google has set itself a more complex task than that which faced Apple when it introduced the iPhone a few years ago. Google is using an open source approach, which means there are more hands on the steering wheel. And Google is trying to overcome an established leader, leading to charges of me-tooism.

A good start is not the race.

November 17th, 2009

What a decade taught Larry Augustin

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 7:07 am

Categories: Cloud Computing, Database Management, General, Software as a Service, Strategy

Tags: SugarCRM, Larry Augustin, Augustin, Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

At 46, Larry Augustin is much too young to be the grand old man of anything.

But he is one of the grand old figures of open source. He was in the group that coined the term back in the late 1990s.

Larry was Sourceforge, he was VA Linux, back during the dot-boom 10 years ago. He rode the stock to $240/share, then watched it plummet to nearly nothing in the dot-bomb.

Once had had a Web site, made it run. Made it race against time. Once he had a Web site, now it’s done, buddy can you spare a dime?

But Larry kept his hand in. He became an angel investor and adviser, a “go-to” guy for any open source start-up looking for some street cred. His current bio has him on 9 different corporate boards, topping the list of the most influential people in open source a few months ago. (Our own Matt Asay was number two.)

The news today is that Larry is the permanent CEO of SugarCRM. Appointed on an interim basis in May to replace co-founder John Roberts, he has pointed the software into the cloud, adding a business model to its large community.

What has he learned in that time?

• Influence is not a contest among bloggers. Augustin’s last blog post is dated July.
• Companies grow through teams. The next negative word about SugarCRM’s people I hear from Larry will be the first.
• The future of open source is in SaaS, in the cloud.

Larry Augustin’s story is proof that second acts in business are possible. Most of those who boomed during the dot-boom were never heard from after the dot-bomb. But not Larry.

His story reminds me of the man who was managing my Atlanta Braves when I first moved here in the early 1980s. He won a pennant, got fired, got kicked around. He got a few gigs, did some broadcasting, advised a few people here and there.

Then he got another shot, in New York, and he took it. His second chance made Joe Torre a sure Hall of Famer.

I can’t guarantee Larry Augustin the same success, but after a decade in the wilderness he has a team again. Hard for me not to root for the “old guy.”

November 16th, 2009

Should search engines pay tribute to content?

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 2:43 pm

Categories: Google, Internet, business models, content, mass market

Tags: Google Inc., Search Engine, Rupert Murdoch, Journal, Internet, Search, Construction, Dana Blankenhorn

Tom Foremski, one of the good guys here at ZDNet, is out with a piece suggesting that Google fork over whatever Rupert Murdoch wants in order to keep indexing Fox News.

His argument is that losing access to regularly-updated content would be a big hole in Google’s business model, which is based on making everything out there available.

I have two problems with that:

1. If one publisher can force Google to pay for a link, so can every other publisher. Blackmail never ends.
2. Publishers have tried this before and failed. Including Murdoch.

I think the first point is more important. Foremski argues that newspapers get little traffic from Google. This is true, mainly because, as he notes, most still haven’t got a Clue when it comes to the Internet.

Google has already taken their wire service traffic away, signing side deals with major wire services like AP, posting those stories on Google pages, paying back the ad revenue. The only newspaper content left is local or beat-specific. Most traffic to those stories comes from the local area.

So if the traffic flow is modest, why should Google be paying? Just to protect its reputation?

There is no need to argue the point. We can run an experiment.

Let Bing or Yahoo pay Murdoch, and let Murdoch put robots.txt files on all his properties, keeping them away from Google’s crawlers. See what happens. If there’s real market share to be gained here, Google’s competitors will be happy to buy it.

On to the second point. Both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have tried the paid model. The Journal maintains it, but offers links to the full-text of its stories, through Google. The Times gave up its Times Select program as a money-loser.

Yes, The Journal began its program before Google bought it. But I also remember a time, about a decade ago, when Fox site managers were transferring every link deep into their site to the home page. It was maddening. They stopped.

There’s some basic math at work here. The smaller your circulation base, the more specialized it is, the better off you’ll do with either a paid model or a registration model.

Lots and lots of journals allow only access to abstracts if you’re not a registered user. The New England Journal of Medicine is an example. And there are many publications only available to paying customers, who are notified of updates via e-mail.

The problem is that if you want a mass audience on the Internet, you have to make yourself available to a mass audience. Newspapers are mass circulation publications. Throwing up registration windows or pay walls hasn’t worked for them.

But, again, Murdoch (and every other publisher) is perfectly free to try. Just write a simple robots.txt file forbidding indexing. Poof, you’re invisible to the search engines’ spiders.

There’s no real controversy here, IMHO. Publishers are free to conduct what experiments they want with Google, either seeking to tweak it to get more audience, or block it to access a smaller, elite audience.

History says Murdoch is barking at the Moon. But he likes to write his own history. Let him try.

November 16th, 2009

Montavista embedded Linux eaten by Cavium

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:33 am

Categories: Distributions, General, Hardware, Implementations, Linux, mergers & acquisitions

Tags: Chip, MontaVista, Cavium, LinuxPundit Bill Weinberg, Embedded Linux, Linux, Open Source, Operating Systems, Software, Dana Blankenhorn

Embedded Linux is proprietary by its nature.

Expressing software inside a chip, then selling the chip, gives embedded Linux a business model, but that business model is tied closely to the success of the chip being sold.

So as chip makers have turned to Linux to power their new designs they have bought the software houses that pushed embedded Linux. Intel bought Wind River and now Cavium has bought Montavista.

LinuxPundit Bill Weinberg is troubled by this, but not for the reason you think. Very few of these companies are left now, and those are very small. But Weinberg is concerned more that Montavista failed to bag the really big bucks it was seeking at its founding 10 years ago.

What embedded Linux means for users and software developers is that there are open source on-chip tools you can write to and use for building bigger applications. Who controls the embedded Linux company is less important than that it succeed.

Cavium is considered a “start-up” networking chip company, but it’s doing some cool and interesting stuff.

This month Cavium showed a networked high-definition WiFi design, dubbed netHD, that can move 1080 HD feeds around your home on an 802.11n set-up. It’s working with Hitachi on “security processors” and drives the latest Netgear firewall. Despite continuing losses stock buyers have bid the company up to $850 million.

One can argue that, while Montavista hoped to sell for more, its investors are now getting a taste of a fast-growing proposition. And their success, Cavium’s success, will be open source’s success as well.

NOTE: My apologies to those who like to engage in flame wars here, for delivering a story that contains nothing but good news. How about this….Microsoft! (Stallman?)

November 13th, 2009

The stupid network will get a hearing

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 7:07 am

Categories: Freedom2Connect, General, Government, Infrastructure, Internet, LANs and WANs, telecom

Tags: Network, Networking, Dana Blankenhorn

Advocates of transforming network regulation from Bell services to dumb bits will get a hearing from the FCC, as David Isenberg, author of the classic Rise of the Stupid Network, has joined the agency as an expert advisor.

(Picture taken in 2004 from Isenberg’s Isen.com Web site.)

Isenberg will be part of the team that will deliver the National Broadband Plan to Congress in February. He wrote on his blog that, as a result of his agency assignment his annual conference on broadband reform, Freedom2Connect, will be postponed.

A bit of disclosure. I covered the 2006 Freedom2Connect conference in Washington for ZDNet.

In the Stupid Network essay, which he wrote while at AT&T in 1997, Isenberg argued that the most efficient network is controlled at the edge, with a design based on the idea of plenty rather than scarcity, and transport based on the needs of the data.

The idea, he wrote, was that the network did not need intelligence at the center, that it should just “deliver the bits, stupid.” Hence the stupid network.

The problem is that while the stupid network is fine engineering, great for users and consumer equipment suppliers, it doesn’t leave much for the telephone company to do but move bits. And Isenberg wrote at a time when the bit-moving market was highly competitive, with prices falling every few months.

Thus the phone companies have argued against the stupid network. They have sought to install gear within the parts of the Internet they control to guarantee Quality of Service, to distinguish between bits based on protocol or what the customer is paying to move them, and to stop bad bits before they arrive at a user’s desk.

“Those are nice bits there, a shame if something happened to them.” And the phone company is Santa Claus, deciding which bits are naughty and which are nice.

The problem with this is it slows the network, and creates a barrier to entry for innovation, which must win permission from the network operator in order to reach the market. It is also redundant if customer equipment can handle tasks previously done by the intelligent network.

The Internet, as it exists today, is essentially a stupid network.

Cellular networks, you will note, are completely different from stupid networks. Such networks are all centrally controlled, with the carrier defining different bits as separate services, controlling who can sell what, and taking a cut on every transaction.

Isenberg left AT&T in 1998 as “Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff” but has been better known as mud, Voldemort and Who’s He at Bell offices ever since. (This is especially true for those who work as Bell lobbyists.)

Isenberg will just be one member of the agency’s National Broadband Task Force, one voice out of many. The FCC is also taking public comment online and holding hearings.

But at least his voice will be heard.

November 13th, 2009

Groklaw suggests Microsoft sue, do over authentication

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:05 am

Categories: General, Government, Legal, Linux, Microsoft, Patents

Tags: Patent, Prior Art, Lawyer, Microsoft Corp., Software Patent, Authentication, Groklaw, Dana Blankenhorn

Microsoft has won a patent that seems to cover an old Unix authentication scheme known as Sudo.

(Your honor, I would like to offer this t-shirt of XKCD’s classic comic as evidence prior art. Mark it as Exhibit A for the defense.)

Groklaw is using the case to argue against software patents, and in favor of the government in the Supreme Court case Bilsky vs. Kappos, in which oral arguments were heard last week.

Advocates of free software have used the case to urge the courts to eliminate software patents, although the appellate court In Re Bilski only limited them. Groklaw may hope the utter bogusity of the sudo patent will prod the Supremes to sing the song their way.

One might also argue, however, that the case argues for better funding at the patent office, and patent examiners with an understanding of prior art.

The Unix version of Sudo (pronounced sue-doo) is freeware. (Red Hat attorneys are probably thinking just that of Microsoft’s lawyers right about now. Oh sue, do.)

The patent describes how Microsoft does Sudo through a program called Runas, but then adds this:

Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological steps, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or steps described. Rather, the specific features and steps are disclosed as preferred forms of implementing the claimed invention.

This is lawyer speak for Clint Eastwood telling the bad guy, “feeling lucky, punk?” To which Linux lawyers might respond, “Go ahead. Make my day.”

My apologies for the puns. The whole issue makes me feel dirty, Harry.

November 12th, 2009

Broadcom goes open source and hell freezes over

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:22 am

Categories: GPL, General, Hardware, Linux, Linux Handheld, Strategy, VOIP, mobile, telecom, wireless

Tags: Broadcom Corp., Linux, Branding, Open Source, Sales Strategy, Operating Systems, Software, Marketing, Sales, Dana Blankenhorn

When the rock group Eagles broke up in 1980 they said they would get back together “when hell froze over.” They did get back together, in 1994. The album was called Hell Freezes Over.

Point is you can promise you will never do something — never, ever, ever — but business is business.

It’s with this in mind we find Broadcom making its BroadVoice voice codecs open source and royalty free under GPL V. 2.

GigaOM is wondering whether Broadcom isn’t just pushing for higher priced, higher quality voice from service providers using the codecs. I have another theory.

Broadcom saw its greatest success in pioneering relationships with Taiwanese OEMs. When other chip companies were offering these firms software and ecosystems, Broadcom offered them solutions, complete designs from brand names they could bang out for a quick profit.

What I saw at CompuTex this year was an enormous interest from these OEMs, whose ties to Chinese manufacturing are incredibly strong, to go “up the stack” of value, to own their own designs and create their own brand names.

They see this as an impossible dream on the desktop, but very possible in the handset business, a Broadcom niche. Systems like Android, LiMo and Symbian are open source, so the components going into them should also be open source. It’s the most effective way to compete with Apple.

In taking this route, the OEMs are explicitly rejecting Microsoft’s Windows Mobile, and this is a very big deal. This has nothing to do with the sales world they desire. They gave Microsoft all of the Netbook market and stuck Linux in a corner.

This Broadcom announcement is the best proof yet that the future of the handheld market is Linux.

November 11th, 2009

Yes, Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization 3.0 will run on Linux

Posted by Paula Rooney @ 7:41 am

Categories: General

Tags: Virtualization, Red Hat Inc., Server, Microsoft Windows, Linux, Open Source, Operating Systems, Software, Paula Rooney

Red Hat created a bit of stir recently when it shipped its Enterprise Virtualization for Servers product because the management component runs on a Window server.  That’s right — no Linux support.

The platform is an enhancement of the former Qumranet’s KVM-based platform, which was designed for Windows and of course supports Linux virtual machines. But it runs only on the Windows 2003 server. Red Hat purchased Qumranet last fall.

Red Hat maintains that pretty much all of its customers have mixed Windows and Linux environments and so the requirement is no big deal. And the company committed to shipping at least some of the enhanced KVM-based platform in 2009.

I thought I’d allow the largest Linux distributor to elaborate on the next generation version coming out in the first quarter of 2010 — the one that will run on Linux.

Andy Cathrow, product marketing manager for Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization, provided these answers to the questions shown below via email:

Q: Much is being made about the fact that the server management solution requires Windows Server 2003 to run. I understand that a Linux port will be made available in 2010. Will this be an entirely new open source product built from the ground up? What is the code going to be based upon?

Cathrow: The Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization 3.0 platform will be based on Java running on JBoss. We’re already well underway on this platform based on a port of our C# code to Java. In addition we are leveraging our existing management in infrastructure that we’re using today in other Red Hat management products such as JBoss Operations Network.

Q: How will the forthcoming version 3.0 work with the existing Qumranet-based virtualization server manager that was just released?

Cathrow: Customers moving from Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization 2.x will be able to move to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization 3.0 without interruption to their infrastructure with a side-by-side installation.

Q: Will the just released version work with Windows Server 2008 R2 or Windows Server 2008?

Red Hat’s Cathrow: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization 2.1 is currently supported running on Windows 2003 and [the] 2.2 [version] will be tested and certified on Windows Server 2008/R2. As you stated future releases will run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

November 11th, 2009

Linux to your grandma this Christmas

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:38 am

Categories: Distributions, General, Linux, Linux Desktop OS, business models, marketing

Tags: Grandma, British Broadcasting Corp., Valerie Singleton, Linux, UNIX, Operating Systems, Productivity, Open Source, Software, Dana Blankenhorn

It’s really just another demonstration of what Linux can do.

It started with a BBC story and quickly became an Internet detective piece.

(If you recognize this picture you’re either a middle-aged Brit or a trivia expert. The lady at the center is the entry point for what follows. She is shown in her mid-1960s heyday hosting the BBC children’s show Blue Peter.)

According to the BBC former children’s presenter  Valerie Singleton (center at right), now running a Web site of discounts for seniors, got together with a small computer store chain recently to offer a PC for older folks who’ve never touched one before.

On start-up users could first see a video from Ms. Singleton, demonstrating the basics, then face six big buttons for applications that are all built-in.

A BBC reviewer called it both patronizing and expensive, but the 80 year-old computing newbie he brought with him appreciated the gentle learning curve. We all know so much, even kids know so much, about computing, that going back to a time when it was all new is hard to conceive. But for some that’s reality.

Then came the detective work. I wanted to verify what the BBC was saying, after all.

• Singleton’s Discount Age makes no mention of the offer on its home page — you have to go inside.
• The man credited by the BBC as the designer makes no mention of the offer on his own blog — he’s drinking in sorrow over turning 42.
• The computer store is a billboard site.
• The help site referenced in the story makes no mention of the offer.
• There is a Linux called Simplicity, which released a new version last month, but it’s apparently no relation to what Singleton is trying to do.  (Simplicity Linux focuses on making old hardware useful.)

Turns out all this is a sales channel. Valerie Singleton, her site, the computer store, the designer, they’re all acting as a channel for Eldy, an Italian outfit which offers a Linux interface based upon Linux Mint, focused on the needs of old newbies.

Which means our detective story has become A Christmas Carol.

Let’s say you have a grandma, or grandpa, here in the U.S., who has never used a computer, claims not to care, but whom you know is just blustering because they don’t know the first thing of what to do.

Check out Eldy. They have a nice slide show on their home page demonstrating the features and benefits of the software.

Then, if you like, download Eldy to whatever hardware you have, load it on an old laptop, and spring it on them for your Christmas visit, sitting by their side as they learn it.

They won’t have Ms. Singleton, but your American grandma likely doesn’t know Valerie Singleton from Adam’s Off Ox.

Once grandma gets the hang of things, they can turn off the Eldy interface and have a solid, basic Linux to work with. They’ll be programming rings around you by Easter.

Who says Santa Claus has to have a long, white beard, or that he only cares about the needs of children? We’re all children — you, me, Valerie Singleton, and your grandma — inside.

Help one this Christmas.

November 10th, 2009

Enterprises saving $26 million per project with open source

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 6:00 am

Categories: Development, Enterprise Policy, General, Implementations, management

Tags: Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

A Black Duck analysis shows the average enterprise software project is 22% open source, saving an average of $26 million on each project.

The estimate was created using the Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO), first released in 1981.

Black Duck, which originally developed its database of code to help companies comply with software licenses, is increasingly turning to it as a research tool, a sort of Framingham Heart Study of software.

In the last few months, for instance, it has documented the rising use of Javascript and PHP, the return of the software M&A market, and the increased use of strong encryption in open source, using its data.

“We’re trying to package up the information around open source projects and serve it in a way that’s productive,” acknowledged Peter Vescuso, (above, right) executive director of business marketing.

Increased interest in and use of open source by enterprises has helped drive excellent growth for the company over the last year, said CEO Tim Yeaton (left). “When the recession started, even conservative organizations have moved to open source.” Studies like this one are a way of giving back.

While three of five developers are still .Net centric, Yeaton added. “What we’re seeing is a wave of pragmatism in terms of building solutions. The religion is out of the equation. Once people figure it out it’s going to be a better way to build” they use it.

“Vendors serving customers at the application development level are figuring out how to respond more effectively. Our message seems to resonate. It’s about the pragmatism of taking advantage of what’s out there, and making good choices at the application level.

“Choose what’s right for the job.” It’s not about values, it’s about value.

UPDATE: Mr. Vescuso made some great points in our talkback thread I think should be in the main story.

it may not be clear this analysis is based on a sample of Black Duck customers and does not represent all enterprise or commercial applications. Our description is at:
http://www.blackducksoftware.com/news/releases/2009-11-10

These were all large code bases. The 22% of the application/product code represents over a half million lines of finished code. If you use COCOMO and BLS wage estimates, you get $26 million. This is the same model and approach the Linux Foundation used to estimate what it would cost to develop Linux. Whatever method you use, a half millions lines of finished code — written, tested — is significant.

November 10th, 2009

Open source be not proud

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 5:53 am

Categories: Database Management, Development, General, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, business models, java, management, mergers & acquisitions, support

Tags: Larry Ellison, Open Source, Dana Blankenhorn

Open source is, in part, a release of ego.

When a program is proprietary, it’s yours. You own it. You can feed it or you can kill it.

Not so with open source. When software is made open source it is with the knowledge that its fate is shared among all stakeholders. The contributions that make it valuable may well come from outside, the direction of the software is no longer completely in the hands of its owner or sponsor.

Larry Ellison doesn’t understand this, and I suspect neither does Wall Street. Otherwise, why would the Street be cheering on Ellison’s suggestion that he’ll kill Sun to keep Euro-hands off mySQL?

More than the future of mySQL is now on the line. So are the futures of Java and OpenOffice, and all the other projects Sun Microsystems sponsors. Ellison thinks this fact should make the EC Competition Commissioner, Nellie Kroess, back off. He seems to think the U.S. government can make Kroess relent.

The key to why Ellison is wrong can be found in the paragraph above. It’s one word. I’ll wait…

The word is sponsors.

Open source companies don’t own the code bases that are in their charge. They seek to monetize the code, so the code can be expanded, so it will draw more committers. Acquia doesn’t own Drupal, and Automattic doesn’t own Wordpress. The code bases are, in fact, owned by the community, simply by virtue of being open source.

Ellison seems to think that if he snaps his fingers and brings down the wrath of heaven, then mySQL and Java and OpenOffice will cease to exist. This would be true if they were closed source. In that case they would be orphaned, and if no buyer were found support would disappear.

Open source does not work that way.

Sure it would be tough for these big projects to find new sponsors. But there are plenty of prospects around.

Google would have an interest in Java, as might Microsoft. IBM already has a stake in Open Office. I’m certain we can find another home for mySQL, too. Even Glassfish might well find a new home within the federal government.

Ellison’s threat to kill Sun’s open source projects if he does not get his way is an empty one. Someone would pick up what remaining pieces have value.

Open source, divorced from its sponsor, turns to software water, and would quickly flow through Ellison’s hands.

Go to an open source conference. Listen carefully to the commercial open source businesspeople you see there. They may talk about their kids and their companies, their hobbies and their passions, including a passion for the projects they control.

But they know those projects are more like their kids than their sailboats. They are responsible for the software they control. They do not own it. It’s not “my” software. It’s “our” software.

This is the attitude you must take if you’re to make a success of an open source business. This is why many in the proprietary world, like Larry Ellison, confuse it with communism, or socialism, or some other foreign -ism.

Open source be not proud. Open source code responds to whomever gives it the love of time. The parents aren’t those who gave it the DNA of capital, but those who gave it the love of hard work.

November 9th, 2009

Where should Mozilla go from here?

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn @ 8:48 am

Categories: Distributions, General, Google, Infrastructure, Internet, Strategy

Tags: Google Inc., Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Corp., Web Browsers, Internet, Dana Blankenhorn

Five years into Firefox, the Mozilla Foundation’s plans seem mainly geared to an aggressive release schedule, so that the browser can compete with Google Chrome.

There is irony here, because the bulk of Mozilla’s income comes from Google, in the form of royalties on the Google search box which sits on the upper-right corner of the program’s interface.

Thus we have a browser created to stop the Microsoft monopoly pushing what some say is the next dangerous monopoly, that of Google.

Firefox is not Mozilla’s only project. There is the Thunderbird e-mail client, the Bugzilla bug tracking system, and SeaMonkey, which combines Firefox and Thunderbird with Web development tools and chat.

But Firefox is what Mozilla is known for, and most of its work, and that of its add-on makers, is devoted to Firefox and the technologies that emerged from it.

Firefox has transformed the Web, by creating real competition to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. The question to ask today, however, is where does Mozilla go from here?

• Can Mozilla expand its funding sources to become truly independent of Google?
• Can Mozilla create real market share outside the browser?
• Should Mozilla be focused on browser share, or leave that to Google Chrome and concentrate instead on HTML-related technologies?
• What is Mozilla, in the end? What does the Foundation want to be?

These are the questions born of success. They are not attacks on Mozilla, but the most successful experiment always raises more questions than it answers. Mozilla is, as they say when a soccer team is attacking, “asking the questions.” Which questions should it be asking?

Where, then, does Mozilla go from here? Now that certainties have disappeared, how does its dreams survive? In an open source world, these are not just questions for the Foundation’s directors. They are also questions for you.